About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)
they considered draconian cuts, harry reid and mitch mcconnell said there's a select committee that will spread the cuts all over, you know, over evenly, and that didn't happen, bottom line is, listen, this has been up for a year, and i, and others said, let's get to it, get to it, and they did everything but this. they are on vacation now. they should have come back last week if it's that important. it doesn't get down. i hope i'm wrong, but people are depending on a type of certainty and stability. lou: interesting difference of view in the republican party. speaker boehner in his op-ed this week acknowledges that there would be significant disruptions as a result of sequester going into effect, yet, most of the republican parties say this is what we need, see spending cuts, need to take if on even if it's across the board and arbitrary. there is a real division right now working the republican party apparently; is that right? >> i have not heard so much let's just make the cuts and about it. i'm in the pentagon. i'll serve next week again, and i'm working in the national guard bureau, and th
's in charge and harry reid in charge of the senate. you'd thought we're in charge of everything, apparently. we're not. the president needs to show adership. the house already sent forth proposals, sitting on harry reid's desk, he's done absolutely nothing to bring this to a head. he'll put a bill up with a great title, went be what we want and force you to do it, and, by the way, blame the republicans when it doesn't happen, and then they get to it after, obviously, the march 1 #st deadline. lou: military pay will not be affected by sequester. there's the prospect of possible rolling furloughs, one day a week, several effects that civilian employees, a great number of them in the rollg fiduciary row situation, if it does, in fact, occur. the idea of a sequester turns out to have been -- it seems to me, a monumental misjudgment on the part of both parties and the president, and i can't believe we are sitting here march 1st, and neither the republica or the leadership says this is a stupid idea, and the only people with the power to correct a massively ignorant device we created, and the rep
, harry reid, and said this is the solution. >> all right. meanwhile, senator lindsay graham is suggesting one potential -- >> i'm sorry, could i interrupt? i had a munchkin in my mouth. >> no, you can't have those. you're supposed to have your greek yogurt. >> i'm trying to make a point with a visual aid. this is like defense spending. done. gone. >> before the day has even started, you've just -- give those to me. >> i'm not homer simpson. what do you make of what woodward said? >> the president's in charge. he's got to figure out a way to stop the sequester. i think the symbolism of the last couple weeks haven't been great. he's not really out there leading a new path towards figuring out how to avoid something he says is a bad idea and promised as a candidate wouldn't happen. >> okay. john, joe's mouth is full. what do you think? >> i'm hap think the sequester be a bad thing. >> everyone says that. who's going to take the blame? who should? >> if it ends up going into effect, i think they're all going to take a lot of blame and they should. it's fair enough to say, if bob's reporting i
to senate democratic leader harry reid who did not get a call from the president today and bush and to pass one of two house republican plans to stop the sequestered. cantor declaring house republicans have acted, and it is time for the president and senate democrats to join us. it is time to get off of the campaign trail and get to work, show us with spending reductions you prefer and let's find some common ground. in a tit-for-tat fight, carney brought out shots on the president's own plans to cut spending and tried to turn the blame game back on publicans. >> there will be jobs and if the sequester takes place. the president will, as he continues to do, call on republicans in congress to agree to avoid the sequestered because it is a wholly unnecessary will run the economy if it were to take place. >> except there were others in the president's party like former democratic national committee chairman howard dean suggesting the president should let the sequester happen to slice the pentagon's budget. telling the huffington post, i am in favor of the sequestered. it is tough on things
. ashley: in separate interviews sunday, both president obama and harry reid called for more revenue, only meaning one thing, higher taxes. this, of course, comes on the heels of an unexpected economic contraction in the fourth quarter and a rise in the unemployment rate. joining me now, fox news' senior judicial analyst. >> smiling because i'm happy to be here, but hard to smile with more taxes. didn't we just give him all the taxes he asked for a month or so ago? this is a mentality that believes in redistricting wealth. we're seeing the president at his most progressive capital "p" as jfk and woodrow wilson after the inaugural address. seems to me and those who watch this for a living that he's determined to imprint a big government brand of government into the fabric of federal law, even more than he attempted to do in the first administration. tracy: to call taxes slavery, that leads people to believe they don't have to pay them. >> if you believe the only legitimate commercial transaction is a voluntary one, then you can argue that taxes are theft and slavery because it's -- i'm not
case to see if they can use the public pressure, west virginia and harry reid in nevada to do things they might not otherwise want to do. i'm extremely skeptical. people have tried this in the past. no doubt the obama folks have a better organization and social media gives you advantages you didn't have in the past but they're trying to do something i have not seen signs they are willing to do in a non-presidential election. >> i do think, michael steele, the republicans will see the president talk on guns tonight and see the victims of newtown. i think that's going to cut through. we've all had these moments and said the union addresses ab had these moments and maybe there won't be an assault weapon ban and maybe won't go after thes a 99 high capacity magazines. but republicans will have a hard time saying no to background checks and saying no to gun trafficking laws. if they do say no to these items that are 9010s, we used to go around the hill saying it's 8020, 80-20 negative. if it's 80-20, that train's coming an you get out of the way. this is 90-10. my question is will republic
with the sequester idea. in fact he has the exact time and date when they first pitched it to senator harry reid, july 27th, 2011. what's your read on that? >> very detailed reporting by bob woodward there. it's an interesting take. certainly the republicans have jumped on. it's been a debate over the last few weeks about who -- actual lit last few months about whose idea this was. you have jack lew, the former chief of staff to the president, up for treasury secretary who said it at a hearing. this was a republican idea. you see the president has sort of hinted at that, too. more recently jay carney at the white house has acknowledged this isn't a white house idea. the republicans are making a big issue of that. as much as the white house is fanning the flames of concern now, sounding the alarms this week it was their idea. they're saying the president needs to come and meet us and sort of acknowledge we gave a little bit on the fiscal cliff on taxes and not going to do it this time. that's the strategy the republicans are using to pin it on the white house. >> joann, they're really blaming the
york times." he begins with these words. on july 26, 2011, jack lew went to harry read's budget for a session. according to bob woodward's book, they came up with a trigger idea to force a budget deal. what's the idea, reid asked? sequestration, lew said. reid folded himself over with his head between his knees as if he was going to throw up. here's the question. if this is such a horrible idea, sequestration or these forced budget cuts, why did the white house come up with this idea to begin with? >> well, as you remember, wolf, in the summer of 2011, we were facing a situation where the nation was about to default for the first time in its history because republicans were refusing to agree to a balanced approach to a deficit reduction. both sides were looking for a way to craft a deal that would avoid default and a trigger mechanism. sequestration, which is a word that most americans have never heard before, is simply a way of crafting policy that was so onerous that would cause cuts that nobody liked, republicans or democrats, and because of that they would compel the prospec
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)